Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #603111 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-23 19:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-06-26 10:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
.999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:37 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Brennan Otten <nnna@nebnrnea.ea> - 2023-06-24 19:20 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:59 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Hoang Kouman <gago@hhngnaoa.om> - 2023-06-24 22:22 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:28 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Bennett Sniders <rtne@etnnneis.bn> - 2023-06-24 23:28 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:53 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:58 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:30 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:35 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:59 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:07 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 16:41 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Deandre Romijnsen <dsrm@nnrderee.ds> - 2023-06-26 21:36 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 16:31 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:34 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:35 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:57 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Bernard Bueren <buur@enbeebdn.ru> - 2023-06-25 08:00 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Vlademire Ramaker <arde@rekeadem.ae> - 2023-06-25 19:18 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 12:29 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-25 17:54 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Nikki Cann <nika@kinianka.ka> - 2023-06-25 22:06 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:15 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-25 18:30 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Shan Kloeten <ntne@ntnnstke.sn> - 2023-06-26 06:45 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely Barton Houtem <otub@ahutnaee.eb> - 2023-06-26 06:58 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 12:47 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Buddy Oorschot <ocuo@codhudoh.to> - 2023-06-25 20:22 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:20 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Geosvani Peter <ogtv@asvsegtg.vp> - 2023-06-25 21:30 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:51 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Dustan Rademaker <mdrn@eurttrrn.de> - 2023-06-25 22:16 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:18 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Lemuel Marqueringh <argr@hqqgugqi.lr> - 2023-06-25 22:57 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 00:19 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Markeen Schenck <ecme@kckhhkkc.kn> - 2023-06-26 07:09 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Germaine Breda <eraa@gmeenmad.dr> - 2023-06-26 22:37 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Morris Offermans <oeoe@ssoaanmf.sr> - 2023-06-26 07:22 +0000
A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 14:23 -0500
Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating Foster Smeets <fste@sstffsem.ee> - 2023-06-26 21:14 +0000
Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely Connor Maas <naoa@nnsamoss.co> - 2023-06-26 21:27 +0000
Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating) Valery Schuyler <evrl@leerrael.hc> - 2023-06-27 11:48 +0000
Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating) Houston Beek <nnoo@bbookeon.ub> - 2023-06-27 22:23 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:20 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-25 18:26 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:29 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ezra Venn <rene@nvanarvz.vn> - 2023-06-25 22:49 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:14 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:19 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:23 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:42 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:59 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 02:20 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:31 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 14:57 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:39 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:20 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 15:07 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 02:38 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:21 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 14:51 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:55 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:56 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:00 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 10:39 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:41 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:18 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 09:57 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 15:08 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 02:13 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:33 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 05:53 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:30 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 14:55 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:27 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:09 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:13 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:15 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:21 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 23:04 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:09 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:12 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 23:20 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:36 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 19:32 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:49 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:31 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-27 16:15 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 14:32 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 02:32 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:03 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:11 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:27 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:37 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:11 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:28 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:05 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:17 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:29 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:32 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:47 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:56 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:01 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:06 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:15 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:19 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:20 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:24 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:32 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Maron Andel <nado@eredlemn.rl> - 2023-06-26 22:25 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:59 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 22:36 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:07 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 17:15 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:27 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 17:30 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:39 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:13 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:02 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Duncan Antwerp <anec@cnancrwp.ca> - 2023-06-26 22:20 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:28 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 19:43 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:18 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Devoise Kool <ovve@sdodevlv.el> - 2023-06-28 21:56 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:38 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:33 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:42 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:05 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:08 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:10 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:20 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:25 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:32 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:20 -0400
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Maxie Snider <eida@esxnnrxd.is> - 2023-06-25 08:06 +0000
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-25 23:53 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:59 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:32 +0100
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 01:39 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 10:05 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:05 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:30 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 00:25 -0700
Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence W <wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaa@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:14 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de8b4518-a061-4a48-b009-2106cf0e4f24n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603237 |
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-7, Vlademire Ramaker wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > >> >> no it doesn't. A limit supposes convergence. There is no convergence > >> >> to have that limit. You guys are liars or braindead. > >> > > >> > .999... gets closer and closer to one. > >> > >> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9) > >> not getting closer to anything. > > > > Right. 0.999... and 1.000... are just two different notations for the > > same thing. They plot differently. No. The two a share sameness that is not equal by a zero difference. They are different quantities by calculus infinitesimal... > > (the real number 1, which may be identified with the integer 1) > > you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology > defining same thing. Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put > > a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. > What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7ad2u$juc7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603237 |
After serious thinking Vlademire Ramaker wrote : > J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> no it doesn't. A limit supposes convergence. There is no convergence >>>>> to have that limit. You guys are liars or braindead. >>>> >>>> .999... gets closer and closer to one. >>> >>> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9) >>> not getting closer to anything. >> >> Right. 0.999... and 1.000... are just two different notations for the >> same thing. >> (the real number 1, which may be identified with the integer 1) > > you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology > defining same thing. Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put > > a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. > What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. You apparently don't know what the difference is between real numbers and computable numbers. Your vitriol falls flat on its face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nikki Cann <nika@kinianka.ka> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7adpv$2bsgh$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603254 |
FromTheRafters wrote: >> you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology >> defining same thing. Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put >> >> a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. >> What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. > > You apparently don't know what the difference is between real numbers > and computable numbers. Your vitriol falls flat on its face. you fucking cretin, computers works with any numbers, which proves the imbecile you are. I fuck your ass, you uneducated imbecile. About 95% of physics and math today is done by modelling in computers. You sack of putrid excrement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7ae9o$k2dc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603255 |
On 6/25/2023 3:06 PM, Nikki Cann wrote: > FromTheRafters wrote: > >>> you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology >>> defining same thing. Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put >>> >>> a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. >>> What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. >> >> You apparently don't know what the difference is between real numbers >> and computable numbers. Your vitriol falls flat on its face. > > you fucking cretin, computers works with any numbers, which proves the > imbecile you are. I fuck your ass, you uneducated imbecile. About 95% of > physics and math today is done by modelling in computers. You sack of > putrid excrement. You are a fine example of an asshole?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 18:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7af6n$k992$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603255 |
Nikki Cann explained on 6/25/2023 : > FromTheRafters wrote: > >>> you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology >>> defining same thing. Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put >>> >>> a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. >>> What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. >> >> You apparently don't know what the difference is between real numbers >> and computable numbers. Your vitriol falls flat on its face. > > you fucking cretin, computers works with any numbers, which proves the > imbecile you are. I fuck your ass, you uneducated imbecile. About 95% of > physics and math today is done by modelling in computers. You sack of > putrid excrement. Then you got up only to fall flat on your face again, too funny. :D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shan Kloeten <ntne@ntnnstke.sn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 06:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7bc6b$2k8k7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603237 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: >> you fucking cretin, so you have in mathematics different terminology >> defining same thing. > > Yes, that is the way it is. Can't be helped. no shit sherlock, yet another polaker idiot. Neither this imbecile can see 0.(9) never become a 1.0. >> Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put >> a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. >> What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. > > Only demented idiots use computers to deal with infinities, without infinities a computer would not even work, you fucking uneducated idiot. Ohh my, not even knowing how computers work. You idiots are all coming from polakia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barton Houtem <otub@ahutnaee.eb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 06:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely |
| Message-ID | <u7bcv1$2kb29$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603237 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Do it on an computer, you dementia hit idiot. Put >> a var1 equal 0.(9) and a var2 equal 1.0. See whether they are the same. >> What group of assholes around here. Fucking worthless idiots. > > Only demented idiots use computers to deal with infinities, also, 1.0 is not an infinity, you sack of putrid excrement. These Duda sack of excrement from polakia wants to kill Russia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7a5jp$itcf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603194 |
On 6/25/2023 1:00 AM, Bernard Bueren wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>>> no. Your 0.(9) is *_never_* an integer. It stays in the description. >>>> >>>> .999... is not an integer, however it has a limit of one. None of its >>> >>> no it doesn't. A limit supposes convergence. There is no convergence to >>> have that limit. You guys are liars or braindead. >> >> .999... gets closer and closer to one. > > it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9) > not getting closer to anything. Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buddy Oorschot <ocuo@codhudoh.to> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7a7ms$2bgat$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603240 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> .999... gets closer and closer to one. >> >> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9) >> not getting closer to anything. > > Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^) it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking stoopid, which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), cretin. In this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7ab30$jjes$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603243 |
On 6/25/2023 1:22 PM, Buddy Oorschot wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> .999... gets closer and closer to one. >>> >>> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9) >>> not getting closer to anything. >> >> Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^) > > it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking stoopid, > which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), cretin. In > this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the > decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro. Check this out: i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... Right? Lets check: i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0 i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9 i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99 i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999 ... See? Each iterate gets closer and closer to one. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geosvani Peter <ogtv@asvsegtg.vp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7abm3$2bsgh$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603249 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^) >> >> it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking >> stoopid, >> which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), cretin. >> In this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the >> decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro. > > Check this out: i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... > Right? you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in physics, idiot. this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and 0.999999. You lack basic education, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7acsi$jt7g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603250 |
On 6/25/2023 2:30 PM, Geosvani Peter wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^) >>> >>> it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking >>> stoopid, >>> which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), cretin. >>> In this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the >>> decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro. >> >> Check this out: i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... >> Right? > > you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It > has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in > physics, idiot. > > this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and 0.999999. > You lack basic education, idiot. Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: .99 is greater than .9 lol. I wonder if that pisses you off?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dustan Rademaker <mdrn@eurttrrn.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7aebk$2chir$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603253 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It >> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in >> physics, idiot. >> >> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and >> 0.999999. >> You lack basic education, idiot. > > Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: > .99 is greater than .9 it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7aegi$k662$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603258 |
On 6/25/2023 3:16 PM, Dustan Rademaker wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>> you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It >>> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in >>> physics, idiot. >>> >>> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and >>> 0.999999. >>> You lack basic education, idiot. >> >> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: >> .99 is greater than .9 > > it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your > fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep. Huh? i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... Take n to infinity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lemuel Marqueringh <argr@hqqgugqi.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7agns$2cpig$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603259 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> You lack basic education, idiot. >>> >>> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: >>> .99 is greater than .9 >> >> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your >> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep. > > Huh? i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... > Take n to infinity. yet another one not knowing what an i̳n̳f̳i̳n̳i̳t̳y̳ stands for. How you want him to take that to infinity?? Go fart yourself in bed and sleep. It's much better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 00:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7b3jr$q0ut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603259 |
On 6/25/2023 6:18 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/25/2023 3:16 PM, Dustan Rademaker wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>>> you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It >>>> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in >>>> physics, idiot. >>>> >>>> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and >>>> 0.999999. >>>> You lack basic education, idiot. >>> >>> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: >>> .99 is greater than .9 >> >> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your >> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep. > > > Huh? > > i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... > > Take n to infinity. When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal sequences in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐. There's no need for me to remind you that the nymshifter is one of Putin's stooges, posting from the main FSB building in St. Petersburg in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Markeen Schenck <ecme@kckhhkkc.kn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 07:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7bdj6$2kdm8$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603309 |
Volney wrote: >>> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your >>> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in >>> sleep. >> >> Huh? i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999. Take n to infinity. > > When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or > with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal sequences you chemically nazified khazar immigrant of america the 0.(9) is standard notation. What you wrote there, 0.999... , just underlines *_the_fucking_stupid_immigrant_* you are. And you will never become something else. yet another fucking idiot wants people to take _n_ to infinity. Fart yourself in sleep, fucking stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Germaine Breda <eraa@gmeenmad.dr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7d3vi$2q6a7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603319 |
Volney wrote: >>>> Huh? i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999. Take n to >>>> infinity. >>> When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or >>> with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal >>> sequences >> you chemically nazified khazar immigrant of america the 0.(9) is >> standard notation. > In nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, yes. More civilized countries often use other > methods it's not you talking, my friend. It's t̳̳h̳̳e̳̳ F̳̳l̳̳u̳̳o̳̳r̳̳i̳̳d̳̳e̳̳ i̳̳n̳̳ y̳̳o̳̳u̳̳r̳̳ w̳̳a̳̳t̳̳e̳̳r̳̳ talking. And you will never talk otherwise. Everything in capitalist america and capitalist uk, *_is_falling_apart_*. You won't feel anything. All bliss and harmony.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Offermans <oeoe@ssoaanmf.sr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 07:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7beaq$2kfuv$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #603309 |
Volney wrote: >>> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your >>> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in >>> sleep. >> Huh? i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999. Take n to infinity. > > When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or > with US/NAZO/UK/ISRAEL Fascist Alliance orders Yelensky to demand more ‘pressure’ on Moscow. That poor nazi bandit bastard Yelensky, is not even a delivery boy, but a lapdog, so to speak! Is it this frist time Belensky don't as fro more money!?? Why, because the fucking gay actor on cocaine knows, *_and_reveals_*, how the fucking happy *_funny_money_* are made on a fucking computer. In *_i[n]_* they take *_n_* to infinity. There is no lack nor pause in the money supply in the fucking *_collective_west_* and the fucking terrorist america. *_Zelensky_demands_more_‘pressure’_on_Moscow_* The Ukrainian gay actor khazar on cocaine, said, the campaign against Russia must continue until “international order” is restored https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578700-zelensky-more-pressure-russia/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 14:23 -0500 |
| Subject | A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence) |
| Message-ID | <kfu6ufFdb15U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #603309 |
On 6/25/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote: > On 6/25/2023 6:18 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 6/25/2023 3:16 PM, Dustan Rademaker wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>>> you can't see you have another function fucked up before >>>>> assignment. It >>>>> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in >>>>> physics, idiot. >>>>> >>>>> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and >>>>> 0.999999. >>>>> You lack basic education, idiot. >>>> >>>> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw: >>>> .99 is greater than .9 >>> >>> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your >>> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep. >> >> >> Huh? >> >> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... >> >> Take n to infinity. > > When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or > with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal sequences > in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐. There's no need for me to remind you that the > nymshifter is one of Putin's stooges, posting from the main FSB building > in St. Petersburg in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐. A little insight into the world that made the nymshifter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJCHXnCRgts It seems the nymshifter falls in a category of "normal" for being a Russian in 2023. I don't wonder if he stands in line to buy toilet paper, I wonder whether he can afford toilet paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web